Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Here's an example of the silliness of copyright law: Because my late grandfather collected and arranged a folk song in upstate New York in the 1950's that eventually became a skiffle hit in the UK, my family gets a check each year from sales of recordings we had basically nothing to do with creating, for work done about 60 years ago by someone who has been dead for over 30 years. Now, it's not a very large check these days, but still, there's no good reason why the song shouldn't be public domain.

On the upside, it is also the song that is on the first known recording of the Quarrymen, so I'd at least have something to talk about if I ended up face to face with Paul McCartney for some reason.

And if his grandfather had been involved in actually making the building, then he would have been paid for the work he performed (usually time based) and there would be no question of continuing to receive benefit from his idea and work.

There are 4 reasons we don't:1. If we release the copyright we have on the text of the song, all that really happens is that the company who owns the copyright to the recordings of the song (also mostly from the 1950's - a 1957 version by Lonnie Donnegan actually reached #1 on the charts at one point) simply gets to keep what they're currently paying us.

2. ASCAP is involved in the legal side of things. I'm not exactly sure how it works, but they're usually pretty vicious about hanging onto the songs they have a right to (and sometimes the songs they don't). Again, it might be that whatever we don't see simply goes to ASCAP.

3. We don't take any kind of steps to enforce it against small performances or individual recordings. So Paul McCartney might have to pay someone who pays someone who eventually pays us, but a high school chorus or a traveling folk singer is not going to run into a problem if they download it from somewhere.

4. My family gives away the money we get to a charitable organization in the region where my grandfather collected the song.

In short, renouncing the copyright only benefits some big corporations at the expense of charity.

Yes, I guess I am. He or His family is the copyright owner (otherwise he wouldn't be getting the royalties), so he/his family have the power to put the song into the public domain. Yet despite there being no good reason not to do so, he doesn't do it. Why? It can't be because the song that is on the first known recording of the Quarrymen, because that would still be the case copyright or no. So the only thing left is the money. He's living high on the hog on his Grand-pappy's Korean war era ditty an

...actually, no. They're working in compliance with a law that has been enacted to act against abuse of copyright terms. It's a law that says "release the material or release the copyright". This is one of the arguments that comes up from people on your side of the fence all the time: "they're not selling it, so it's of no value, so it should be free." Well, they've said "it is of value, so we are selling it, so it shouldn't be free."

It looks to me like the law is functioning as intended and achieving the intended goal.

Unlike 50 years ago, when Apple released all those tracks it was on the Internet. I have no intentions of respecting copyright on something over 50 years old, and now that the material is out in the open, we all have access to it.

The material has now been released to the world instead of decaying on a shelf. A good start indeed.

And more to the point, the material would not have fallen into the public domain anyway -- the summary is wrong, following as it does the lead paragraph of the CNN article, which is wrong. If you look halfway down the article it says:

The British government, following the change in European copyright law, implemented a law last month providing "that if a record label is not commercially releasing a track that is over 50 years old, then the performers can request that the rights in the performance revert to them -- a 'use it or lose it' clause," the government's website said.

(my emphasis)

The public domain is not affected by this law in the slightest: it's between the Beatles and Apple Corp. Apple doesn't want the McCartney and the other 3's families getting hold of the material and then selling it themselves for a higher percentage, so they've rushed this out to hold onto their cut.

And the irony here, is that without this copyright issue, these tracks might not have been releases at all.

The purpose of copyright is to have people produce, and in extension release their work. In this case it's quite easy to argue that the copyright laws helped directly in getting this released. Had there not been this 20-year extension rule, most likely they'd have let the copyrights expire and possibly simply dump the tapes in the garbage bin, only to be lost forever.

Yeah, your computer mouse is broken, so just throw out the whole new computer because obviously it's not needed since it's broken. Just like copyright.

The MAFIAA isn't the only entity who relies on copyright. Programmers, even GPL programmers, depend on copyright.

I depend on copyright. I just released a sci-fi novel, and since I don't have a kings ransom for marketing it isn't selling many copies. Without copyright I would sell none at all, because anyone with a publishing company could sell as many as they wanted, and they have the marketing muscle to completely bury me.

Don't "throw the baby out with the bathwater", to use an old overused cliche. The system is broken, and was broken deliberately by monied interests. Copyright lengths are way too long and things that used to be copyrightable now aren't -- for an example, the JD Sallinger's heirs successfully sued a guy for writing a sequel to Catcher in teh Rye. That just simply should not be. George Harrison should not have been successfully sued for "My Sweet Lord" and ZZ Top should certainly not have been sued for "La Grange", that was the fucktardedest one of all; what was copied was "ah how how how".

The arts are like technology and science in that everything new springs from the old. Like Newton, Van Gogh and Mark Twain stood on the shoulders of giants. Imagine how technology would suffer if patents lasted as long as copyrights? Nothing written or painted before 1990 should still be covered. "To promote the progress of science and the useful arts", how are you going to convince Jimi Hendrix to write and sing any more songs?

But completely revoking it is childish madness. You are out of your mind for suggesting it. Get a clue, dude. I wrote that book so it would be read (I'm posting it on my web site for free, only physical copies cost) but if someone else is making money on work I did, I want my share.

No, Apple is not packaging them up and putting them on iTunes. Apple doesn't own the copyrights. Apple Corps, the corporation founded by the members of the Beetles who do have the copyrights, is the one releasing them on iTunes.

When you have two entities that have almost the same name involved in the same story, it makes a different to differentiate the two to be absolutely clear. But this is Slashdot after all...

True, and originally, the trademark dispute between the two was settled with a pittance and an agreement by Apple, Inc. not to sell music [wikipedia.org]. However, they managed to win over a judge when iTunes came out and then wrest control of the trademark away from Apple Corps (perhaps better known as Apple Records) shortly thereafter.

No, Apple is not packaging them up and putting them on iTunes. Apple doesn't own the copyrights. Apple Corps, the corporation founded by the members of the Beetles who do have the copyrights, is the one releasing them on iTunes.

When you have two entities that have almost the same name involved in the same story, it makes a different to differentiate the two to be absolutely clear. But this is Slashdot after all...

Not to mention the whole reason Apple Inc., was named that was because Jobs was a huge Beatles

Not to mention the whole reason Apple Inc., was named that was because Jobs was a huge Beatles fan (well, Apple Computer, Inc. originally). And that Jobs and Woz couldn't come up with anything better.

That's not the true story of course:

Once upon a time, Steve Jobs was sitting under an apple tree to think, as he usually did, about how to make life better for all of humanity. When all of a sudden he got hit by an apple. Accelerated by gravity the apple hit quite hard. But, Steve Jobs wasn't hurt. He just rubbed his head and thought: "Good thing, that thing had rounded corners."

No, Apple is not packaging them up and putting them on iTunes. Apple doesn't own the copyrights. Apple Corps, the corporation founded by the members of the Beetles who do have the copyrights, is the one releasing them on iTunes.

When you have two entities that have almost the same name involved in the same story, it makes a different to differentiate the two to be absolutely clear. But this is Slashdot after all...

You mean two entities like the obscure music collaborative of common insects to which you refer, and celebrated rock band the Beatles?

No, Apple is not packaging them up and putting them on iTunes. Apple doesn't own the copyrights. Apple Corps, the corporation founded by the members of the Beetles who do have the copyrights, is the one releasing them on iTunes.

When you have two entities that have almost the same name involved in the same story, it makes a different to differentiate the two to be absolutely clear. But this is Slashdot after all...

Apple Corps has had a long history of trademark disputes with Apple Computer (now Apple Inc.). The dispute was finally resolved in 2007, with Apple Corps transferring ownership of the "Apple" name and all associated trademarks to Apple Inc., and Apple Inc. exclusively licensing these back to the Beatles' company. In April 2007, Apple also settled a long running dispute with EMI and announced the retirement of chief executive Aspinall.[23][24] Aspinall was replaced by Jeff Jones.[25]

What does the USPTO or patent law have anything to do with this? It's a British COPYRIGHT law that was passed following a change to a European law. Patents and trademarks are not at play here. Nor is US copyright law.

Even if it was about US copyright law, it's not abuse. It's following the law. If Apple Corps lobbied to have the law change, then maybe it's abuse. But they didn't. They just applied the law and the protection it granted to their work. Which is their right under copyright law.

Recording copyrights last longer in Slashdot's home country. The current term is 95 years from publication, or 95 years from 1972 when sound recordings were added to U.S. copyright law, whichever is later.

Since that song is a cover, originally a hit for Barrett Strong, songwriter royalties for it would go to Berry Gordy. Strong was initially listed as a songwriter, but was later removed. Gordy claimed Strong's inclusion as songwriter was a "clerical error."

(They get bonus points in the Licensing of the Press Act for conflating "unlicensed Bookes and Pamphlets" with "seditious treasonable Bookes and Pamphlets." Still a staple for those trying to bundle legislation supporting their own interests in with legislation that "everybody should vote for.")

It would be nice to have an explanation of when a copy goes out of copyright and how that effects other copies and originals. When an original (A) goes out of copyright, which I think we mostly understand. Compared to when copy of A (B) goes out of copyright. How does this affect the copy right on A and B. Does B have to be creatively different, detectably different, and what if they cannot be told apart? What about copy C made from A after copy B, or copy D and from B before copy C, or copy E made from B a

It would be nice to have an explanation of when a copy goes out of copyright and how that effects other copies and originals.

Copyright applies to the original and all the copies. If someone doesn't make a copy but creates a modified work, that new creator would have the copyright on their changes, but the unmodified parts would still be under the original copyright. If copyright for the original expires, then all unmodified copies are free, all copies where modifications are so small that they don't create new rights are free as well.

And, just because someone tried this, converting to a different audio format doesn't affect co

You joke, but it's really incentive for future artists more than former. When they see people working a few years in their youth and then earning royalties into retirement, that's quite the incentive to get into music.

You joke, but it's really incentive for future artists more than former. When they see people working a few years in their youth and then earning royalties into retirement, that's quite the incentive to get into music.

That is probably true to some extent but it isn't the kind of incentive that we'd really like as a society. We want artists to continue producing content not produce a few big hits and then stop and go live off the procedes for 75+ years. That's how we end up with things like Disney that specialize in using public domain stories to produce slightly new content and using the procedes to prevent that work from ever entering the public domain in turn.

Copyright laws are meant to protect an artist's ability to monetize their creations (I won't go into the ethics and morality of copyright). The recordings were of poor quality, so at best, they mostly serve as items of historical interest, not completed, quality works. Otherwise, they would have been released on an album and snapped up by Beatles fans. At best, I'm puzzled why anyone would bother protecting copyright on something that nobody really wanted in the first place and really is more of scholarl

The recordings were of poor quality, so at best, they mostly serve as items of historical interest, not completed, quality works. Otherwise, they would have been released on an album and snapped up by Beatles fans. At best, I'm puzzled why anyone would bother protecting copyright on something that nobody really wanted in the first place and really is more of scholarly interest.

My cynical interpretation is that they found an excuse to release something that they know is of too-poor quality to really be worth releasing so that they can monetize it among the true hardcore fans who will buy anything. Otherwise, why are they charging $40 for it?

The Beatles gold mine ran out of salable ore long ago. So all they can do is to sell slag to the tourists.

Even though I'm a hardcore Beatles fan, I never bought the last remastered box-set release. I might do that one day, though, when the p

Could well be. I'm looking forward to finding out for myself one day (on CD, though - I don't have a decent turntable.) In my own case, they alienated me by producing both stereo and mono box sets. As a hardcore fan, I'd be willing to be taken for another $300 after having already purchased the full catalog previously on both vinyl and early-issue CDs (which reportedly sound lousy, though I'm used to them so I don't know any different by now). But since they've tried to take me for $300 twice more by is

Except that the summary is wrong. It is not about the public domain, because according to TFA, the copyright in the unreleased recordings reverts to the artists, it does not expire. The point is to protect the artist from abusive labels. If the label doesn't make the material available, it starves the artist of their earnings. If the label isn't making money for the artist, the artist should have the right to make money elsewhere. There have been cases where artists have recorded something and then the labe

I like music. I like Rock, Jazz, Clasical, Ambient, Bluegrass, New Age, just about any genre. I really like artists who write their own music. Not so much singers who are little more than a pretty voice. But I never got on the Beatles (the group or their various solo works) bandwagon. With rare exception, if something made the "top ten", that meant it was played at least once an hour, every hour, 24/7, (on the radio, pretty much the only way to listen to music when I was a kid) until I quickly got tire

I dunno. My kids are in their early twenties and love the Beatles. I love looking through the music on their phones and seeing all the new stuff I hate and then catch sight of all the Beatles albums. I taught them something right.

No, seriously. You can (to some degree) explain most other laws logically. They also tend to be quite consistent.

Not so in these areas. Why is some drug legal and another one with pretty much the same kind of "danger" attached to it is not? Why are some sex practices illegal in some places (not to mention the question who may fuck whom)? And if I start with copyright and its logical loopholes I guess I exceed the posting limit.

1. As mentioned, it is "Apple Corps", the company owned by the Beatles, that put the music on the music store by "Apple Inc", which allows people to buy this music if they wish to, or not buy it if they don't wish to.

2. Apple Corps has 70 years copyright on all published music by the Beatles. As a quirk in British law, unpublished music only has 50 years copyright. That's different from US law, where the clock starts running when the music gets published, so the same songs according to US law would have infinite copyright protection, being not published at all.

3. So people here get all excited because Apple Corps made a tactical move to get the same copyright on this music as on all the other music, where in the USA they would actually have had much longer copyright.

4. Remember: With this move, you can actually get this music now, where before you couldn't. The only ones hurt by this is anybody who somehow had illegal copies of this music in their possession, and hoped to cash in when copyright runs out.

Back in 1963, the Beatles did some performances for the BBC and other places. The songs were recorded, but never officially released. Now, 50 years later, Apple has packaged all 59 tracks together and put them up for sale on iTunes for $40.

That makes it sound like this is the entirety of the (still existing) recorded material from 1963. It isn't. Quite a few more takes of There's A Place, I Saw Her Standing There, Do You Want To Know A Secret, A Taste of Honey, Misery, From Me To You, Thank You Girl, One A

Pretty much every note, every inch of tape that the Beatles ever produced has been bootlegged. Collectors like me already have all this stuff, though maybe the new releases might have better sound quality. The Beatles themselves would be first to admit that some of this was substandard work though, which is why it wasn't released back then in the first place

"You could call it a "death tax," if that term hadn't been taken. Next year, Americans who die with more than five million dollars in assets will pay 40% in taxes. Americans who die on Medicaid will pay 100% of their Medicaid expenses before their heirs get one penny.

Your googlefu really,really, really sucks my first search and I had info on it.
However that portion is not changed in obamacare that dates back a few decades ago, Medicaid is just a loan to be paid back when you no longer need your house and items. What Obamacare does is lower requirements to get medicaid it then requires people to go on Medicaid if they qualify for it. If you qualify for Medicaid you now longer qualify for the subsidies that others get under obamacare.
In the past you basically had

Many young people go through a 'Beatles' phase. It's one of the possible paths of '(recordings of) music appreciation' that young people can go through. Another alternative artist to fixate on is Jim Morrison. Che t-shirts and other bric-a-brac from 'The Sixties' (which really happened in the early 70's) figure in this.

It's kind of a College Freshman phenomena. And a rite of passage for some people.